Primary Stability of Collared and Collarless Cementless Femoral Stems - A Finite Element Analysis Study.
Collared stems
Collarless stems
Femoral stems
Finite element analysis micromotion
Journal
Arthroplasty today
ISSN: 2352-3441
Titre abrégé: Arthroplast Today
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101681808
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
13
12
2022
revised:
12
03
2023
accepted:
18
03
2023
medline:
8
5
2023
pubmed:
8
5
2023
entrez:
8
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Primary stability of the femoral stem is important for the long-term results of cementless total hip arthroplasty. Cementless collared stems have been known to have higher stability than collarless stems when there is a contact between the collar and the calcar. The purpose of this study was to compare the stabilities of collared stem and collarless stem in 2 loading conditions: 1) flat walking and 2) stair climbing. We constructed 3 finite element models. In the first model, the collar had contact with the calcar. The second model had a 1 mm gap between the calcar and the collar. The third model was constructed with a collarless stem. The proximal femur around the stem was divided into 3 zones: the upper zone (Gruen zones 1 and 7), the middle zone (Gruen zones 2 and 6), and the lower zone (Gruen zones 3 and 5). The micromotion at the stem/bone interface was measured at each zone of the 3 models under the 2 loading conditions. The results showed that collared stems were more stable when the collar was in contact with the calcar than when a gap was left between the collar and the calcar. In particular, collar contact was highly effective in suppressing the micromotion proximal to the stem. Compared to the collarless stem, the collared stem had comparable stability when there was a gap at the collar and calcar interface and higher stability when there was contact between the collar and the calcar.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Primary stability of the femoral stem is important for the long-term results of cementless total hip arthroplasty. Cementless collared stems have been known to have higher stability than collarless stems when there is a contact between the collar and the calcar. The purpose of this study was to compare the stabilities of collared stem and collarless stem in 2 loading conditions: 1) flat walking and 2) stair climbing.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We constructed 3 finite element models. In the first model, the collar had contact with the calcar. The second model had a 1 mm gap between the calcar and the collar. The third model was constructed with a collarless stem. The proximal femur around the stem was divided into 3 zones: the upper zone (Gruen zones 1 and 7), the middle zone (Gruen zones 2 and 6), and the lower zone (Gruen zones 3 and 5). The micromotion at the stem/bone interface was measured at each zone of the 3 models under the 2 loading conditions.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The results showed that collared stems were more stable when the collar was in contact with the calcar than when a gap was left between the collar and the calcar. In particular, collar contact was highly effective in suppressing the micromotion proximal to the stem.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Compared to the collarless stem, the collared stem had comparable stability when there was a gap at the collar and calcar interface and higher stability when there was contact between the collar and the calcar.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37151402
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2023.101140
pii: S2352-3441(23)00045-6
pmc: PMC10160691
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
101140Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors.
Références
J Biomech. 2001 Jun;34(6):773-81
pubmed: 11470115
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Sep;75(5):681-7
pubmed: 8397213
Bone Joint J. 2019 Jul;101-B(7):779-786
pubmed: 31256663
J Biomech. 1998 Feb;31(2):125-33
pubmed: 9593205
J Biomech. 2010 Jul 20;43(10):1923-30
pubmed: 20392448
J Biomech. 1993 Dec;26(12):1355-68
pubmed: 8308041
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2018 Nov;59:101-109
pubmed: 30219523
J Biomech. 2000 Dec;33(12):1611-8
pubmed: 11006385
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Jul;(208):108-13
pubmed: 3720113
Int Orthop. 2011 Feb;35(2):189-94
pubmed: 20814676
Open Orthop J. 2015 May 29;9:194-7
pubmed: 26069515
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2021 Jul;87:105411
pubmed: 34144390
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979 Jun;(141):17-27
pubmed: 477100
J Biomech. 2005 May;38(5):1155-63
pubmed: 15797596
Lancet. 2012 Nov 17;380(9855):1768-77
pubmed: 23021846
J Orthop Res. 2018 Apr;36(4):1185-1195
pubmed: 28940776
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Nov 21;14(1):376
pubmed: 31752951
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019 Sep-Dec;27(3):2309499019877530
pubmed: 31578134
J Arthroplasty. 2011 Dec;26(8):1549-55
pubmed: 21570801
J Biomech. 2008 Nov 14;41(15):3282-4
pubmed: 18829031
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 May;79(5):707-14
pubmed: 9160943
J Orthop Surg Res. 2022 Sep 29;17(1):437
pubmed: 36175915
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Mar 2;93(5):500-9
pubmed: 21368083
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Aug 19;102(16):1427-1433
pubmed: 32816417
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992 Dec;(285):13-29
pubmed: 1446429